INDIA RESURGENCE ARC PRIVATE LIMITED versus M/S. AMIT METALIKS LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 13-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VINEET SARAN, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
611
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 611
611
INDIA RESURGENCE ARC PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
M/S. AMIT METALIKS LIMITED & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 2021)
MAY 13, 2021
[VINEET SARAN AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: s. 30(4) – Resolution
plan – Approval of, in the corporate insolvency resolution process
– Resolution plan submitted by resolution applicant taken up for
consideration by the CoC – Appellant expressed reservations on
the share proposed particularly with reference to the value of security
interest held by it and chose to remain dissentient financial creditor
– Resolution plan as approved by the vast majority of voting share
in the CoC was submitted for approval by resolution professional
to the Adjudicating Authority – Adjudicating Authority found the
plan to be feasible and viable with judicious distribution of financial
bids by CoC to the stakeholders according to their entitlement –
Adjudicating Authority approved resolution plan – Appellant
unsuccessfully challenged the same before the Appellate Authority
– Hence the instant appeal – Held: The matter of the process of
consideration and approval of resolution plan is essentially that of
the commercial wisdom of CoC and the scope of judicial review
remains limited within the four-corners of s.30(2) of the Code for
the Adjudicating Authority; and s.30(2) read with s.61(3) for the
Appellate Authority – The financial proposal in the resolution plan
forms the core of the business decision of CoC – Once it is found
that all the mandatory requirements have been duly complied with
and taken care of, the process of judicial review cannot be stretched
to carry out quantitative analysis qua a particular creditor or any
stakeholder, who may carry his own dissatisfaction – The proposal
for payment to the appellant is at par with the percentage of payment
proposed for other secured financial creditors – Therefore, no case
of denial of fair and equitable treatment or disregard of priority is
made out – Judicial review.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The matter as regards the process of
consideration and approval of resolution plan is essentially that
of the commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors and the
scope of judicial review remains limited within the four-corners
of Section 30(2) of the Code for the Adjudicating Authority; and
Section 30(2) read with Section 61(3) for the Appellate Authority.
[Para 10][623-B-C]
1.2 The financial proposal in the resolution plan forms the
core of the business decision of Committee of Creditors. Once it
is found that all the mandatory requirements have been duly
complied with and taken care of, the process of judicial review
cannot be stretched to carry out quantitative analysis qua a
particular creditor or any stakeholder, who may carry his own
dissatisfaction. In other words, in the scheme of IBC, every
dissatisfaction does not partake the character of a legal grievance
and cannot be taken up as a ground of appeal. [Para 11][624-F-G]
K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. (2019)
12 SCC 150 : [2019] 3 SCR 845; Maharashtra
Seamless Limited v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh and Ors.
(2020) 11 SCC 467 – referred to.
2.1 The provisions of amended sub-section (4) of Section
30 of the Code, on which excessive reliance is placed on behalf
of the appellant do not make out any case for interference with
the resolution plan at the instance of the appellant. The NCLAT
was right in observing that such amendment to sub-section (4) of
Section 30 only amplified the considerations for the Committee
of Creditors while exercising its commercial wisdom so as to
take an informed decision in regard to the viability and feasibility
of resolution plan, with fairness of distribution amongst similarly
situated creditors; and the business decision taken in exercise
of the commercial wisdom of CoC does not call for interference
unless creditors belonging to a class being similarly situated are
denied fair and equitable treatment. [Para 12][625-A-D]
2.2 In regard to the question of fair and equitable treatment,
though the Adjudicating Authority as also the Appellate Authority
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
have returned concurrent findings in favour of the resolution plan.
The proposal for payment to the appellant is at par with the
percentage of payment proposed for other secured financial
creditors. No case of denial of fair and equitable treatment or
disregard of priori

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.